1872.] 293 
he means to refer to an object; my complaint was, and is, that the reference is 
incomplete ; it is precisely because he does tell me that he has captured a bottleful 
of adjectives, and nothing more, that I venture to protest; Dr. Sharp’s answer to 
my protest is, in effect, that because the man meant to indicate something, therefore 
he must have done it,—because he meant to give some information, therefore he must 
have given it! It is as if I were told by a man that he had shot one “ green,” 
caught two “spotted,” and plucked three “large :” and I suppose it is expected of 
me to believe, that the name of that man is Sapiens ! 
In the latter part of his note, Dr. Sharp says the point under discussion is, 
how to treat the generic and specific names when temporarily sundered ; but, with 
submission, this is not the point under discussion. The point is, whether the specific 
name is an adjective or a substantive ; whichever it is, it retains the same character 
whether it be joined with or temporarily sundered from the generic name---though 
my contention is that the two never ought to be sundered. Of course, a species 
may be transferred from one genus to another, and when so transferred the specific 
name goes with it. But what I mean is, that the specific name ought not to be 
treated as having a separate and independent existence; the moment it is severed 
from one generic name, it is or should be at the very same moment joined to 
another; I do not recognize such a thing as a specific name unattached; the 
question is not how to treat the specific name apart from the generic or how to treat 
the two when sundered, but how to treat them when united. 
Dr. Sharp admits that the generic and specific appellations together constitute 
the name; and thisis something gained, for in his former paper he seemed inclined 
to overlook this. In truth, the radical mistake (or what I conceive to be the 
radical mistake) which pervades the whole of his argument is this, that he loses 
sight of the distinguishing characteristic of the binominal system, and throughout 
regards the secondary or trivial name as if it were identical in character with the 
name, i. e., the whole name, in a uninominal system. His contention is, Niger denotes 
a certain object, and is the name of a definite thing; and therefore it is a noun 
substantive. My contention is, that, according to the Linnean system of nomen- 
clature, the trivial appellation Niger does not denote a certain object, and is not the 
name of anything. 
Undoubtedly I denied Dr. Sharp’s statement that niger, when used as a specific 
name, indicates a certain definite object ; but my friend is in error in attributing 
to me the argument that niger is not a noun simply because there might be more 
than one object bearing that name. He enquires, Is Turkey not a noun because 
both a bird and a country are so called? Certainly, turkey isa noun. But is it a 
specific name? Tf not, the illustration fails. No doubt many objects may be called 
by the same name, which is none the less a noun on that account. And Niger, if 
chosen as a generic name (though the selection would, for obvious reasons, be an 
unhappy one), would doubtless be a noun, and none the less so, if there were two 
genera, each so called ; though the name would not be retained for both, at least if 
both belonged to the Animal Kingdom. 
As on the previous occasion, Dr. Sharp’s last paragraph perplexes me; the 
Adonis passage is as bad as the “ universal grammar.” It passes my comprehension 
how the learned Doctor can gravely institute a comparison between changing 
nvinimus into minima to make it agree in gender with the generic name, and changing 
